The Voyage of the Beagle

Charles Darwin's father at first refused to allow his 22-year-old son to go on this voyage around the world in 1831-1836: he felt it was not a wise career choice. Fortunately, his father relented, and we have Darwin's journal, which may be the greatest scientific travel narrative ever written. Revised by the author in 1860, this is an account of his experiences on the Beagle, which led to his formulation of the theory of evolution. He was able to observe coral reefs, fossil-filled rocks, earthquakes, and more, first-hand, and made his own deductions. Original (of course) and entertaining!

Recent Forum Posts on The Voyage of the Beagle

﻿Darwinian Evolution: Allow me to begin at thebeginning of Mr. Darwin¡¯s life. Charles Darwin was bornFebruary 12, 1809, (the birth date of Abraham Lincoln). Charles Darwin was the son of a well to do physician inEngland, Dr. Robert Darwin. It is reported that the Dr. was6'6" and weighed 320 pounds and Charles¡¯ mom was fromthe Wedgewood china family. Later, when Charles wasbeing groomed to follow father¡¯s profession, footsteps, itwas learned Charles didn¡¯t have the stomach for surgery.

But when we read of his time and surgery practices,one may better understand. This was not an enlightenedtime. In the days Charles Darwin was training, surgeonsperformed surgery in their street clothes. Cleanliness wasnot known to be important. Although they usually wiped offthe surgical tools, they carried them from patient to patientin a doctor¡¯s bag without sterilization or other cleansing.

One in five surgeries was an amputation performedwith very little and often no pain killer. Approximately onehalf of the amputation patients died from infection,secondary infection, shock or a combination of the three.

Other methods of medicine included bleedingpatients to rid them of their ¡°bad blood.¡± It was notuncommon to bleed them of one half or more of their totalblood supply. There were generally no transfusions. Dehydration was another method prescribed by physicians. Doctors were prescribing blood sucking leeches forinfection. The leading cause of death was tuberculosis withdoctors often being the carriers. It was this practice ofmedicine the young Charles had rejected.

In 1825 Charles entered Edinburgh Medical school.After his problems with surgery, in 1827, Charlestransferred to Christ¡¯s College, Cambridge. Most peopleare shocked to learn that Charles Darwin was not trainedas any kind of scientist, but . . . as an Anglican (episcopal)pastor at Christ¡¯s College Cambridge. Young Charlescompleted his studies to be an Anglican pastor in 1831.

While at Cambridge, Charles met Professors JohnHenslow (1796-1861) and Rev, Dr. Adam Sedgwick (17xx-18xx). These two men were instrumental in encouragingyoung Darwin to take an around the world cruise on theH.M.S. Beagle as an unpaid naturalist, before taking hisfirst pastorate.

The H.M.S. Beagle, under Captain Robert Fitzroy,set sail on 27 January, 1832. Although not scheduled totake that long, the voyage took almost five years tocomplete. When Charles boarded the Beagle, he wouldquote the Bible as ¡°the¡± answer in matters of morals.However, the sailors chided him for his narrow beliefs. Slowly Charles Darwin abandoned his belief in the Bibleand became a racist. Darwin also read Lyell¡¯s Principles ofGeology while on the voyage. Based upon what Lyell wroteand what Darwin believed he was observing, Darwinbecame a uniformitarian (vast age believer) before hearrived at the Galapagos islands in 1835. Charles believedthat Lyell¡¯s principals might be applied to what he saw onthese islands. Young Charles arrived back in England on 2October, 1836. This decision to take the ocean trip beforebeginning his career as a minister had markedly altered hislife. It would serve as a motivating factor leading to thepublication of his career defining Origin of Species.

Twenty-three years later, in 1859, Charles Darwinpublished the imaginative speculation: On the Origin ofSpecies, By Means of Natural Selection, Or ThePreservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle ForLife. Pastor Darwin was only a self taught geologist. When Mr. Darwin wrote Origin of Species he admitted hehad problems with the fossil record. He also wrotethat he hoped as more fossils were discovered, therewould be proof for his ¡°imagination.¡± Charles Darwin wrotethe following admitting the complete absence of fossilevidence in the rocks (geologic record) for his imaginedtransmutation. Darwin wrote: In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day,... . . . But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. (Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of Favoured Races, In the Struggle For Life, Chapter 9, Online (6th?) edition, 1859)

Translation: I know there is no scientific evidence offossils (dead animals) linking one species to another. Iknow this is a most serious (gravest) objection ¡°against mytheory.¡± (It was not really a theory, but only his imaginedideas, ideas that as one can see, were in opposition to thefacts). One may rightly define Darwin¡¯s book as speculationsince when Darwin wrote he did not have any factual basisfor his imagined ideology (evolution).

A continued translation of Darwin would be: I do notknow why there is no proof, but the ¡°explanation¡± (I reallyhope) is because of the ¡°extreme imperfection of thegeologic record.¡± (We have not dug up enough rocks yet tosee what the record will show). When we dig up enoughrocks, I really, really, really hope it will show what I amwriting here today.

Mr. Darwin spent part of another chapter in the bookapologetically naming great scientists of his day whoDarwin feared, would all (but perhaps one) reject histheory. This is what Charles Darwin wrote. I quote:

". . . We see this in the plainest manner by the fact that all the most eminent paleontologists, namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, & c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species. But I have reason to believe that one great authority, Sir Charles Lyell, from further reflexion entertains grave doubts on this subject. I feel how rash it is to differ from these great authorities, to whom, with others, we owe all our knowledge. Those who think the natural geological record in any degree perfect, and who do not attach much weight to the facts and arguments of other kinds even in this volume, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory. . . ." -Darwin, Charles On the Origin of Species, chapter 9.

Darwin¡¯s contemporaries: Brother Hughes, didn¡¯t thegreat majority of well known scientists of Darwin¡¯s daysupport Darwin? Not on your life!

I Laughed: Darwin¡¯s former geology professor, Rev. Dr.Adam Sedgwick who had been department head atCambridge, a most prestigious British university readDarwin¡¯s book. The professor wrote to Darwin that hisbook was a joke. Sedgwick told Darwin the reports of whatDarwin had seen in various parts of the world were good. However, Sedgwick said that about certain parts of thework, ¡°parts I laughed at till my sides were almostsore; . . . .¡± Sedgwick concluded Darwin¡¯s positionuntenable and absurd. Sedgwick went on to condemnDarwin for mischief with the facts. (He alleged Darwin hadbeen deceptive)

Another of the scientists referred to by Darwin in theabove quote in Origin of Species (and other places in thatwork) was Louis Agassiz, a Harvard professor. ProfessorAgassiz was Darwin¡¯s contemporary. He wrote there wasno ¡°factual basis¡± for Darwin¡¯s theory. Agassiz reportedthat ¡°all¡± the scientific evidence was ¡°against¡± Darwin and¡°his henchmen.¡± Agassiz said highly complex organismshad been found in the oldest rocks. This clearly provedthere was no evolution of species. Why? It was becauseDarwin argued life evolved from simple to complex. Withthese complex fossil life forms in the oldest rocks, therewas no room for simple to complex evidence. Therefore,the fossil findings of 1859 said, ¡°NO¡± to evolution. Do youunderstand why?

If evolution had been true, you would not find highlycomplex forms alone. They would be changing from asimpler form to a more complex (evolved) form. Darwinwrote we would find unnumberable (literally thousands ormore) of simple forms, slowly changing from simple tocomplex. BUT what did the fossil record show? The fossilrecord of Darwin¡¯s day revealed highly complex organismsin the oldest layer of rocks in which there was evidence oflife, the Cambrian layer of rocks. There was absolutelyNOT ONE prior life form. NOT ONE!

As both Darwin and Professor Agassiz declaredevolution could not be true without these innumerablefossils in the geologic (rocks) record. The only scientificconclusion one could make is: highly complex life formssuddenly and explosively appeared in the fossil recordwithout any prior simpler life forms in the fossil record. This is evidence against simple to complex evolution. It isin favor of the creation mandate: ¡°In the beginning GodCreated the Heaven and the Earth . . . ¡±

All the scientists named by Darwin in his book, butone, did reject the speculation in his publication abouttransmutation or evolution. In spite of this rejection, Mr.Darwin hoped his slow and gradual, simple to complexspeculation would be eventually revealed in the fossilrecord. Was the fossil evidence found?

20th Century Fossil Record: In the next onehundred eighteen (118) years, hundreds of expeditions dugand searched for fossil evidence to prove Darwin¡¯s theory. At the end of that period, Stephen Jay Gould, Harvardprofessor and Niles Eldredge, a curator of The AmericanMuseum of Natural History, New York City, concluded thefossil record did not support Darwin¡¯s evolution. These menhad been thorough Darwinian evolutionists. Yet, whileproposing another imagined theory, Gould made thisobservation of the fossil record: 2 Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ¡°fully formed.¡±

Hmm. Do I understand? Darwin admitted heneeded fossil proof. Darwin¡¯s esteemed contemporariesrejected his imagination because the 1859 fossil recordwas against Darwin. Evolutionists searched for fossil prooffor more than one hundred years. They found hundreds ofthousands of additional fossils. However, the additionalfossils supported the earlier conclusion that there was nosimple to complex record. All fossils appeared fullyformed, not evolving. Conclusion: Evolution has no proof!

Evolutionists claim some fossil finds are older thanthe ones of Darwin¡¯s day. BUT none are transitionalfossils. Darwin wrote there would have to be innumerable(hundreds of thousands, if not millions) of prior life formsshowing slow, gradual, incremental changes. There wasno such evidence in Darwin¡¯s 19th century. There was nosuch evidence found by the end of the 20th century.

Jeffery H. Schwartz reported in his 1999 book,Sudden Origins, that those who believe evolution, even ifthey believe in rapid (punctuated) evolution, recognize thata considerable number of generations would be requiredfor one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complexkind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable numberof true transitional structures preserved in the fossils.Schwartz noted there are billions of non-transitionalstructures found But (with the exception of a very few,very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathereddinosaurs and the alleged walking whales) there are notransitional fossils. Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossilrecord with so-called missing links, honest, thinkingpaleontologists discovered that the finds solidified the¡°gaps¡± (absence of transitional forms) in the fossil record.No transformational evidence of intermediates betweendocumented fossil species had been found. (Schwartz, JefferyH. Sudden Origins (New York. John Wiley, 1999)

Dr. Schwartz indicated that although billions offossils had been found, there was no such evidence oftransitional fossils. Certainly there were not prior multipletransitional life forms in the fossil record that Darwin wrotewould be found. Gould, Eldredge and Schwartz thusconfirm Darwin¡¯s contemporaries were justified in declaringthe fossil record said, ¡°No¡± to Darwin¡¯s imagined evolution. In like manner, the fossil record of today says ¡°No.¡± In shortDarwin¡¯s hoped for proof was not found. Darwin concededin Origin of Species that lack of fossil evidence was a¡°grave¡± objection against his ideas. Darwin hoped it wouldone day be found. It has not been found. Conclusion:Darwin was wrong! (Not the book )

We could stop our inquiry here and conclude that Mr.Darwin had speculated improperly that all the species onEarth had come forth in a natural manner. But Darwin triedto overcome the question of ultimate origin or firstbeginning. Mr. Darwin wrote in chapter 15 about aCreator. Darwin confers on God a small ¡°walk on¡± role: ¡°. . . powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;. . . ¡±

Darwin said perhaps a few or one had life breathedinto it. Thus he concluded that life had not spontaneouslyarisen BUT proclaimed all other species came via randomchance and natural selection. Darwin imagined slow,continual, gradual evolution which required unnumberableslow incremental changes. Yet, by the end of the nextcentury (1999), there was no proof in the fossil record orthe live animal kingdom, that species evolved as

What was Darwin arguing? That after all was started(probably by God) God was not relevant to creation ofspecies. He argues God is not needed. The Bible is atodds with Darwin. It was very clear Darwin did not believeGod created man ¡°in His own image.¡± (Gen.1:27)

Sir Frederick Hoyle (1915-2001 A.D.), 20th centuryastronomer, Cambridge University, left Christianitybecause Gospel writers didn¡¯t agree on the number ofangels at the Resurrection. Hoyle became an agnostic. In1984 Hoyle wrote of Darwinism and its failure: I quote: "How the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection managed, for upwards of a century, to fasten itself like a superstition on so called enlightened opinion? Why is the theory still defended so vigorously? Personally, I have little doubt that scientific historians of the future will find it mysterious that a theory which could be seen to be unworkable came to be so widely believed. The explanation they will offer will I think be based less on the erroneous nature of the theory itself and more on the social changes and historical circumstances that surround its development." (Hoyle, Sir Fred. The Intelligent Universe, Holt, Rineheart & Winston, NY p.25)

Do You believe in Changing Truth ? Evolutionists have noproblem in reversing positions. They once falsely claimedas proof or their ¡°truth¡± the fossil record. In the first half ofthe 20th century up until 1960 Dr. Carl Dunbar, PhD, wrote:

Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms. (Carl O. Dunbar, PhD (geology) Historical Geology, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1960, p.47)

However, by 1981, the view had radically changed.It was no longer their ¡°truth.¡± The fossil record did notsupport Darwin. Gould and Eldredge (1977) had already soconcluded. Thus zoologist Ridley, from Oxford, wrote: In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.

In twenty-one years they departed from professingfaith in the fossil record as ¡°the¡± basis for evolution in 1960,to repudiating that so-called ¡°truth¡± by 1981. Dr. Ridleythen boldly states ¡°no real evolutionist¡± uses the fossilrecord. Wow! What an example of changing... ¡°truth¡±? As observed, Darwin hoped fossil record evidence wouldbe found. The fossil record did not then and does not todaysupport evolution. It never has supported Darwin. Howcan we trust anything they tell us? Their ¡°truth¡± is inconflict with the real truth and is ever changing.

BE NOT Conformed: Christians must not be conformedto this ever changing evolutionary ideology. Why? It is inopposition to the Bible. Today, many former evolutionistsdo not pretend Darwin¡¯s evolution is true. Yet, publicschool students for about five generations had beenpropagandized, brainwashed with or filled with the fable:darwinian evolution. It is ¡°the¡± belief system taught inpublic schools. It is not testable, replicable science. It issomething contrary to the evidence. It is a belief system.

To better understand this is a belief system, to learnof its fallibility, we need to meet and learn about the threekey men responsible. The three were: Darwin, who builtupon the uniformitarian ideas of Charles Lyell, who hadbuilt upon James Hutton¡¯s complete fantasy.

Charles Lyell (1797-1875): Who was Charles Lyell?Lyell is the man who links Darwin to Hutton¡¯s ideas ofuniformitarianism. Mr. Lyell was not a geologist. He wasnot trained in any scientific field. Yet, Lyell wrote a three-volume set entitled Principles of Geology (1830-1835). What was his training? Lyell was educated as an attorney. An attorney wrote geology books? Yes. Charles Lyellwas credited with ¡°making popular¡± the Hutton beliefsystem in geology labeled uniformitarianism (all Earthgeology results from slow, gradual, continual, virtuallyeternal erosion). Although much could be written aboutCharles Lyell and his life, it is sufficient for our purposes toknow that: 1) he was from Scotland. 2) He was educatedas an attorney, who apparently was more fascinated withdirt and rocks than law. 3) Lyell wrote the 3 volume work¡°Principles of Geology.¡± Young attorney Lyell believedand advocated the Hutton ideas with great force andbelievability. Lyell had a profound effect on a clergyman,then acting as a ship¡¯s scientist (naturalist), named Darwin. Mr. Darwin knew (but the world at large does not know) thetheory upon which evolution is based was the idea of aman named Hutton.

James Hutton (1727-1797) James Hutton is not knownby Christians. He is not well known except to those inrelated areas of study. James Hutton should be knownwidely, since his imagined ideas have ¡°held captive¡±geology and other branches of science, for over a century. His ideas were presented by Lyell then by Darwin for hisimagined evolution. Evolution spread widely throughoutsociety. It was challenger to Creator God. And indeed, itwas James Hutton who fathered this revolution.

James Hutton, a young Scottish man, was everlearning. First he studied the law. When he was clerking(apprentice in a law office), he spent much time helping afriend invent a process, rather than on his duties. Huttonwas dismissed from his clerkship. Hutton went back toschool and earned a medical degree. After a short time atthe practice of medicine, (some report no practice ofmedicine) Hutton, who had inherited a farm, became afarmer. (Hutton and friend were developing the process).As a farmer Hutton was more interested in studying therocks and the dirt of his land than in farming it. (Although,admittedly, he enjoyed some farming success).

Soon Hutton began to speculate about how all dirtand rocks came to be. Hutton decided that the key to thepast is the present. The thought of the era before Huttonand the present era is the key to the present is the past. Hutton believed the opposite and explained all of Earth ina simplistic model of slow, gradual, continual. This wascontrary to the belief of Earth scientists of his day. It was areversed view of Earth geology. It denied the dominantteaching of that day: catastrophism.

In the 1780s Hutton began to voice and publish hisideology about Earth's surface. He probably built upon:

1) the 1594 view of Loys leRoy, who taught that the land and sea changed places through erosion and catastrophe; 2) the 1637 work of Rene Descartes (Discoures de la Methode) (earth as a cooling fire ball); 3) Robert Hooks (1705) lectures and discourse of earthquakes that cast doubt upon the flood of Noah; 4) Conte deBuffon in his work, Epochs of Nature (1774) directly attacked the Biblical time records and calculated the age of the earth to be 75,000 years. 5) Jean deLuc in 1778 accepted the Bible, BUT assumed the six days of Creation were l-o-n-g periods.

Allow me to roughly explain Hutton¡¯s idea.

Slow, Continual Erosion: Hutton noticed dirt falling into acreek. This was called erosion. Hutton speculated thateventually all dirt and worn rock on Earth erodes intostreams. The streams carried it to the rivers. Riverscarried this dirt to the ocean. This excess dirt wasdeposited upon the ocean floor. The extra weight built up.The pressure forced the ocean bottom downward. Inanother spot, far away where there was weakness,mountains thrust upward forming mountain ranges. Thiswas his hypothesis or belief.

James Hutton decided that then the new mountainswould erode their dirt and worn rock into creeks. Creekscarried it to rivers. Rivers delivered the material to theoceans. The extra weight of the continuing depositscaused pressure that pushed down on the ocean floor. Inanother weak spot new mountain ranges were thrust up. Then the process begins and repeats, repeats and repeats,over and over and over and over and over. Hutton wrotehe believed this had occurred over a massive period oftime. It was a slow, continuous, repetitive process. Itexplained, Hutton asserted, everything we saw on Earth. Does this sound familiar? Isn¡¯t it what you were taught inelementary science? Isn¡¯t it now taught in the seventh, andeighth grades? But, is it true? You thought they wereteaching you ultimate reality or fact. Not true. Hutton¡¯sideas were not based upon fact. Hutton¡¯s ideas werecontrary to the Earth¡¯s scientists of his day. It was just oneway of looking at things, a philosophy. And I bet they nevertold you that in school!

The Hutton assumption or conjecture of geologymade little progress, however, against the teachings of theschool of Abraham Gottlob Werner, a German geologist.Werner taught the long standing principle ofcatastrophism. . Thus Earth scientists of Hutton¡¯s daybelieved earth geology was explained by catastrophicevents including the world wide flood of Noah¡¯s day.

Hutton reduced his mental inspiration andspeculation to writing in his ¡°Theory of the Earth¡± (1785,1795). This was further expounded by anotherScotsman, John Playfair, in his Illustrations of the HuttonianTheory (1802). Catastrophism was consistent with theteachings of the Bible and most great thinkers, includingthose of the greatest scientist: Isaac Newton.

Most people do not realize there was majoropposition to uniformitarianism (and later evolution) fromscientists of that time, including well known prominentmembers of the scientific community. These men, andmany whom they influenced, believed the Biblical timescale and catastrophism explained the geology of theEarth. The uniformitarian view of Hutton did not receivemuch acceptance in the scientific community until anotherScotsman and an attorney, Charles Lyell, wrote his three-volume work : Principles of Geology (1830-1835).

¡°Uniformitarianism¡± was the name of the view fromthe imagination of James Hutton (1726-1797). Hesupposed a system of natural ongoing processes such asriver erosion and weathering. This he improperly contendedwould explain all the surface of the Earth. Hutton wroteTheory of Earth (1795). Hutton¡¯s ideas affected Lyell.Lyell, building on James Hutton¡¯s Earth age conjecture of1795, argued all Earth geology could be explained asgradual, continual, slow: grain by grain, erosion. Heignored and repudiated catastrophes: all catastrophes,including Biblical explanations such as The Great Flood ofNoah. Lyell affected Darwin. These three men, who hadpublished after 1776 (American Revolution) were to turngeology, biology and all scientific philosophy upside down.

Building on what Rock? Uniformitarianist Geology: Darwin borrowed his slow, continual, gradual ideafrom the uniformitarianism written of by Charles Lyell. Lyell alleged everything on Earth is supposedly explainedby this speculated teaching of slow, gradual, continualprocesses. This became a geological principal, only whenmade popular by the attorney, Mr. Lyell in his three volumepublication entitled: Principles of Geology. Soon it became a uniting principle of natural philosophy, as science was then labeled. And an attorneyproclaimed ¡°uniformitarianism¡± as the geologicalprincipal. Uniformitarianism, surprisingly, spread quicklyfrom geology (geo=Earth ology=study of) from Hutton toLyell, then from Lyell to Darwin. Everything on Earth issupposedly explained by their speculated teaching of slow,gradual, continual processes. Yet they ignore land slide,flood, volcano, as factors in forming our mountains, valleys,and canyons. It is now well accepted that the geologist whoignores catastrophes does not have a credible explanationof Earth geology.

Hutton-Lyell-Darwin: Who were these three men whoargued for this then new belief (slow, gradual) system, laterlabeled uniformitarianism (everything is slow, gradual andcontinual)? As mentioned: Hutton, Lyell and Darwin, werenot trained Earth scientists. Not one of them. AlthoughHutton had been trained as a physician, that was in thedays when leeches, blood letting and non sterilized surgerywas the standard of practice. Yet, three, self taught, non-geologists, reversed the geological belief system. What isamazing and ironic is that today the three might not bepublished. Why? They do not have the requisite academicqualifications so they may publish or speak.

When evolutionists debate, write to criticize or wantto exclude from publication, certain articles, they often citethe lack of academic credentials as a reason to not believethe author and to exclude them from having articlespublished in any leading scientific magazine. Perhapsfarmer Hutton (only because of his medical degree) mighthave a chance at publication. What do you suppose wouldhappen if an attorney with a new theory of geology (Lyell)wanted to publish? We all know the result if a clergyman(Darwin) wanted to publish a new belief in one ofevolutionist journals. NO CHANCE!

But, the farmer-attorney-doctor (Hutton), a secondattorney (Lyell) and a clergyman (Darwin), changed thebasic scientific philosophy. How ironic, when today theirimagined assumptions would likely not be published inany enlightened scientific journals because of their lackof academic credentials.

Not An Ancient Belief: This method of slow, incremental,vast Earth age calculation, named uniformitarianism, hasbeen used by evolutionary geologists for ONLY the lastone hundred and seventy-five (175) years. Before Lyell¡¯spublication (1830), which spread Hutton¡¯s theory, nocredible geologist believed uniformitarianism describedEarth geology. Did you hear me? NO CREDIBLE man ofscience believed in this imagination; not until Lyell. Brother Hughes, are you certain of that? Let us consultprofessor, astronomer, theorist, author, vast ager, Sir FredHoyle, PhD. (1915-2001A.D.) reports: I quote: ¡°. . . The great geologist Charles Lyell (1797-1875) repeated and extended Hutton¡¯s observations in the field, and soon came to the conclusion that Hutton¡¯s ¡°principal of uniformity¡±, as it became called, was indeed correct. Lyell¡¯s ¡°Principles of Geology,¡± the first volume of which appeared in 1830, was in considerable measure responsible for the disappearance of the Biblical time-scale from all serious discussion. Indeed, Lyell¡¯s books were largely responsible for convincing the world at large that the Bible could be wrong, at any rate in some respects, a hitherto unthinkable thought.¡± (Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, NY 1983, p. 29)

In the 20th century (1985) Charles E. MerrillPublishing Company, a textbook company, in Section 9,Geologic Time and Earth History, p.211, declared:

¡°Almost 200 years ago James Hutton recognized that the earth is very old. But how old? Scientists tried to date the earth for many years, but their attempts were not very successful. Instead they had to rely on techniques which helped them place events in their proper order without knowing how long ago each event occurred. . . .¡± (p. 211) . . .

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the doctrine of catastrophism strongly influenced the formulation of explanations about the dynamics of the earth. Briefly stated, catastrophists believed that the earth¡¯s landscape had been developed primarily by great catastrophes. Features such as mountains and canyons, which today we know take great periods of time to form, were explained as having been produced by sudden and often worldwide disasters produced by unknowable causes that no longer operate. This philosophy was an attempt to fit the rate of earth processes to the then-current ideas on the age of the earth. . . . (emphasis added) (Ibid.)

So as to a date when the vast ages becameaccepted by the world at large, we would have to agreewith Hoyle, it was after attorney Lyell¡¯s publication of thethree volumes on geology in the early to mid 1830's. Thusit was after 1830 when geologists contended for greatages of the Earth. They based this upon calculations ofgrain by grain uniformitarianism. Also we note thesegeologists have designated the competing explanation (andproper) catastrophism, a philosophy, not science. Thusthe textbook concludes that a way of looking at things is aphilosophy, not science. Please remember that.

Well, what in the world caused Darwin¡¯s imaginationto be accepted by so many seemingly intelligent persons?

Darwinian Theory built upon Made Up Evidence, Fraud, Error & Hoax

One of the reasons Darwin was believed wasbecause of those who Professor Agassiz labeled ¡°Darwin¡¯shenchmen.¡± These would include British naturalist ThomasHuxley and German professor Ernst Haeckel. The two¡°evangelized¡± for Darwin when his ideas were under attack. They defended Darwin in debate and then ¡°made up¡± falseproof that misled multitudes.

Made Up Evidence

Wanted: Early Life Form: Evolutionary followers knewof the long standing problems and the attacks bycontemporaries of Darwin. The evolutionists could notshow any life forms, evolving below the Cambrian rocklayers. The millions of fossils in the Cambrian bed of rockswas called the Cambrian explosion. These were complexfossils fully formed. Opponents of Darwin took this as theperfect expression of God¡¯s creation. (And it is). Therewas no sign of (slow, incremental, continual) evolution, butinstead the explosion of complex fossilized life. This hadalways been evidence for creation and of great concern toevolutionists since and including Darwin.

This explosion of life was found not at the Earth¡¯slowest and oldest rocks, but about 5/6 of the way up to thesurface. There was not a trace of pre-Cambrian life whenDarwin wrote: Origin of Species. Since there were noactual earlier life forms, how did the evolutionists react? The evolutionists made up two phoney pre-Cambrianforms and gave them names: Eozoon and Bathybius. Theonly purpose for them was to support Darwin¡¯s fragiletheory. These were said to be part of the monera of life, aterm made up by Ernst Haeckel of Germany. Haeckelmade it his life¡¯s practice to create deceptions to bolster¡¯sDarwin¡¯s fragile imagination.

Darwin was delighted with these new so-called pre-Cambrian ¡°discoveries.¡± Eozoon (which was supposed toclosely resemble Bathybius) entered the 4th edition ofOrigin of Species with Darwin¡¯s blessing. Darwin stated¡°It is impossible to feel any doubt regarding its organicnature.¡± Was Darwin correct? No.

When these two disciples of Darwin (British scientist,Huxley and the German professor Haeckel) proposed falsegelatinous forms, with unusual names, there was more thana little speculation. But, the disciples argued, primitive lifeforms allegedly covered the floors of the seas.

The Challenger expedition of the 1870s set sail toexplore the world¡¯s oceans and hoped to find these lifeforms. Great amounts of deep sea mud was dredged andlifted onto the deck of Challenger. The so-called life formswere not found. But, as they preserved samples for lateranalysis by adding preserving alcohol to the mud, that Bword, Bathybius suddenly appeared. They found andadmitted the so-called early life form was a substancecreated by adding alcohol to mud. It was not organic life. It was a precipitate of calcium sulfate produced when deepsea mud reacted to the alcohol.

Was Darwin correct in saying it was organic life? No! It was not organic (alive, living). It occurred only uponmixing deep sea mud with preserving alcohol. AgainDarwin and his disciples were without a pre-Cambrian formof life. Evidence again exhibited and proved ONLY suddencreation of complex organisms in the Cambrian rock layer.

Gemmules Anyone? Darwin¡¯s most colossal error, asidefrom the imaginary evolution itself, was his false belief ingemmules. Gemmules? What are gemmules?

¡°Gemmules¡± were presumed quite small and thoughtable to carry ¡°acquired characteristics¡± through the bloodinto the sperm of the male and the egg of the female to thenext generation. Darwin, in error, believed newly acquiredcharacteristics were passed through the blood of bothfather and mother through ¡°gemmules¡± to their offspring. The traits were supposed to be carried through thesereproductive cells via gemmules. Would we thus concludethat a father who was a weight lifter, who had acquiredlarge muscles, who then had five daughters would havefive large strong muscular girls? Would a mother, who haddeveloped a very slim waist and had worked to have aparticularly feminine body, pass this onto her sons? Fortunately for the girls of the muscle bound weightlifterand the boys of the very feminine mother, this gemmulesimagination is as inaccurate as the other imaginationswritten by Darwin. (Origin of Species and Descent of Man.☻¢Ð☺☻¢Ð)

What proof did they have of these gemmules, otherthan the imagination of their minds? None ! I.L. Cohen,educated as an engineer, a lifelong researcher intohumankind¡¯s past and noted author, stated, and I quote:

We now know that gemmules did not exist outside of Darwin¡¯s imagination. Many scientists defended this theory, simply because they assumed it to be true. Gemmules were taken quite seriously at the time - they had been advanced by an authoritative scientist and couched in ¡®scientific¡± terms.

With time, however, it was realized that heredity did not work according to the fantasies of Darwin¡¯s imagination. Instead Gregor Mendel¡¯s theory of genes. . . proved to be scientifically correct...; in those years Darwin¡¯s magnetism was much too strong to overcome. The scientific community of the 19th century preferred to continue theorizing with Darwin¡¯s hypothetical pronouncements, rather than evaluate the solid, factual data submitted by Mendel. His significant laboratory results were brushed aside by all the ¡°learned¡± scientists, as though they meant nothing. Instead Darwin¡¯s illusory gemmules theory was paid serious attention and subscribed to as being established scientific fact.

Groundless Beliefs: Eozoon, bathybius andgemmules, were humiliating errors, groundless beliefs.These grave errors were first laughed off, then hidden.Why? Darwin¡¯s notion was tenuous, at best. The Truthshining in on it might destroy it as quickly as the noondaysummer Kansas sun melts butter left out on a dish near awindow. Evolutionists, rather than admit darwinism was inserious trouble, allowed their misplaced faith in Darwin tocarry them deeper into error. When the errors becameapparent, evolutionists preferred to bury them or keep themquiet. Why? Negative results and discoveries within adecade and one half of the darwinian articulation causedserious doubts about Darwin¡¯s announcements.

Engineer, author I.L. Cohen, in 1984, wrote: I quote:

Unfortunately, . . . realistic carefulness and scientific humility was not widely exercised during the 19th century and Darwin¡¯s theory was virtually acclaimed as the arrival of the scientific Messiah. Still more unfortunately, we continue to consider that theory as law, without having the intellectual courage to question anew each aspect of it as if there were no alternatives. Darwin¡¯s theory is not scientific law - it still lacks conclusive proof in spite of its plausibility and popularity. (I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong, . . . New Research Publications, Inc. NY {1984} p.20)

Posted By Unregistered at Tue 26 Apr 2005, 2:45 PM in The Voyage of the Beagle || 3 Replies